"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Nic Samojluk]

It makes no sense to reject facts because they contradict with creation myths in books.

I do not reject the facts, but rather the questionable interpretations of said facts and the premises they rest on.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Does not follow at all. You have not yet established that the correct replacement of the singularity is inconsistent with the BB and the expansion of the universe.

There is no way of testing, replicating nor falsifying what is claimed for this singularity nor the BB that allegedly followed. Singularities do not obey the laws of nature. The BB theory is built on a very shaky foundation. I conclude that this resembles science fiction instead of science.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Halton Arp was a crackpot. He remained a crackpot.

But Galileo didn't!

 

[Nic Samojluk]

We aren't. You are ignoring the facts because they contradict your religious beliefs.

I am not ignoring the facts, but rather the interpretation of those facts built on questionable premises that cannot be subjected to the strict requirements of true science. No science man has so far been able to explain how singularities behave because they are not subject to the laws of nature.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Moreoever, if you are going to claim that an interpretation is wrong, then show it is wrong.

I have no need to provide a proof that BB is wrong. All I need to do is to remind you that the BB theory is built on unverifiable premises that cannot be subjected to testing and replication. Singularities do not belong in science, but rather science fiction.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

It is this type of attitude that made people invent such things as embedded age where God creates a fake history to fool us.

The embedded hypothesis is no better than the belief in singularities. When dealing with events that cannot pass the strict requirements of science, we need to place them in the category of science fiction.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I have nothing against the use of the many connotations of the “myth” term. I am only opposed to the incorrect use of the term in connection with the Bible.

As am I.

There might be some mythical elements found in Scripture, but the bulk of this sacred book deals with credible historical events quite often attested by the testimony of credible witnesses corroborated by archaeological finds.

Indeed -- however, the creation of the world as described in Genesis 1-3 is not one such event.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Science is good whenever its findings can be verified, tested, replicated, and falsified. But when dealing with events located in the distant past, science is no better than science fiction.

There might be some mythical elements found in Scripture, but the bulk of this sacred book deals with credible historical events quite often attested by the testimony of credible witnesses corroborated by archaeological finds.

Funny how science is a lot better than science fiction when it suits your purpose. Apparently it's only useless when it disagrees with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not ignoring the facts, but rather the interpretation of those facts built on questionable premises that cannot be subjected to the strict requirements of true science. No science man has so far been able to explain how singularities behave because they are not subject to the laws of nature.

Wrong, they are subject to the "laws of nature". The problem is that we do not fully understand all of the "laws of nature" yet. The fact that we do not fully understand what goes on inside a singularity is not evidence against that science. You are merely grasping at straws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The embedded hypothesis is no better than the belief in singularities. When dealing with events that cannot pass the strict requirements of science, we need to place them in the category of science fiction.

That's good, because the embedded hierarchies do pass the "strict requirements of science".

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Science is good whenever its findings can be verified, tested, replicated, and falsified. But when dealing with events located in the distant past, science is no better than science fiction.

Well, when we dig up a fossil, its pretty clear there was once an animal that had those bones. Fantastic as such an animal would have been, in many cases, they did really exist. And when we examine a piece of volcanic rock, we can pretty much pin down how long ago it was (to the nearest hundred thousand years or so) that it cooled off and became solid.

 

[dad]

As am I.



Indeed -- however, the creation of the world as described in Genesis 1-3 is not one such event.

I consider the verification of Jesus and the apostles of Moses and creation to be the highest validation possible.

 

[dad]

The universe is probably much older than 14.7 billion years, while our planet is much younger, and life on planet earth is perhaps measured in double digit thousands of years.

So you claim that God did not create the heavens and the earth as per Genesis? Because He made the stars and sun in creation week, as well as earth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I consider the verification of Jesus and the apostles of Moses and creation to be the highest validation possible.

Good for you. Your opinion is noted.

 

[RickG]

Science is good whenever its findings can be verified, tested, replicated, and falsified. But when dealing with events located in the distant past, science is no better than science fiction.

With respect specifically to the earth's atmosphere, climate and environment, how far back in the distant past do you think we can go.

 

[Loudmouth]

I consider the verification of Jesus and the apostles of Moses and creation to be the highest validation possible.

Stories in books are not validation of anything.

 

[dad]

Stories in books are not validation of anything.

The exception is Scripture which was validated by history and Christ rising from the dead. Your denial is futile.

 

[RickG]

The exception is Scripture which was validated by history and Christ rising from the dead. Your denial is futile.

Actualy, scripture written more than a generation after his death by people who where not even alive when he was. In other words, "hand-me-down-stories", nothing contemporary.

 

[Loudmouth]

The exception is Scripture which was validated by history and Christ rising from the dead. Your denial is futile.

What history has validated a recent global flood? Where is the evidence?

Where is the evidence for a young earth?

 

[Astrophile]

I have no need to provide a proof that BB is wrong. All I need to do is to remind you that the BB theory is built on unverifiable premises that cannot be subjected to testing and replication. Singularities do not belong in science, but rather science fiction.

There is plenty of evidence for Big Bang cosmology. There are the observed redshift-distance relationship (or redshift-apparent magnitude relationship), the observed cosmic microwave background, and the observed cosmic abundances of deuterium, helium-3, helium-4, and lithium. There is also the BOOMERanG experiment, which showed that the geometry of the universe is flat. Any of these observations could have shown that the Big Bang cosmology is false, but they have not. Since you reject the Big Bang, it is, I think, fair to ask how you explain these observations if not as the result of the expansion of the universe from an initial high-density high-temperature state?